a.k.a. desperate loan originators
Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., No. 04-1403, reverses and remands, holding that that in the Title VII contest, arbitrators are the ones who should decide whether the employer complied with a time limit, but whether the overall right to arbitrate remains with the courts. The court then went on to hold that, on the merits, under 9 U.S.C. § 3, an employer does not waive its right to arbitration by failing to demand arbitration during the pendency of an EEOC investigation or initially before the court.
In reaching this decision the court also discussed the interplay of 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) (interlocuatory appeals from denial of stays pending arbitration), the time limitations in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (motions for to amendment the judgment).
The facts are somewhat interesting. The actors were loan originators. Consider this passage:
Marie also alleges that Thompson threw her out of a stopped car in the winter of 2002 because he was angry with her work. Finally, she alleges that Thompson physically beat Marie in June 2002 both because he was angry with her work and because he thought she was having a sexual affair with another Allied employee. Marie alleges that Thompson wanted her to have sexual relations solely with him. Marie never returned to work after the beating in June -- the company listed her termination date as June 28, 2002. She claims that Allied falsely reported in its personnel records that she voluntarily quit her position. In July 2002, Marie sought and obtained an Abuse Prevention Order from a Massachusetts state court requiring Thompson to stay away from her.
The EEOC, found, however that, “...evidence showed that Marie and Thompson lived together and represented themselves as domestic partners; there was no evidence that her "consensual relationship" with Thompson was "unwelcome" as required to be actionable under Title VII. “
Comments